Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS adequate and affordable housing is the most important concern of many Northerners;
AND WHEREAS without adequate, affordable and accessible housing, individuals and families lack the basis for healthy living, successful educational participation, security of employment and participation as full members in the economies, health and development of our communities;
AND WHEREAS the NWT Housing Corporation’s program guidelines set a rent scale which can result in a rental rate of 30 percent of assessed gross income and which normally results in rent comprising more than 40 percent of low net incomes;
AND WHEREAS other provinces and territories use different guidelines, such as 25 percent of assessed gross income;
AND WHEREAS the use of the 30 percent of assessed gross income guidelines for determination of rental rates can result in the levying of excessive and debilitating rents, especially upon low income earners;
AND WHEREAS difficulties in the reporting and assessment of rent can result in immediate rental increases and accumulation of arrears;
AND WHEREAS public housing tenants with rental arrears are ineligible to apply for homeownership assistance programs, which further prevents their transition from public to owned housing;
AND WHEREAS the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation is undertaking a review of the Public Housing Program and other programs and policies of the NWT Housing Corporation;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that this Legislative Assembly recommends that the NWT Housing Corporation reduce the rent scale so the maximum rental rate is 25 percent of assessed gross income.
Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is on the floor. Before I open the motion to debate, the Chair is going to call a short break, then we will come back and debate it.
---SHORT RECESS
We have a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are unquestionably many issues to grapple with in the area of public housing, as the Minister well understands, at least by the end of today. I’m sure he knew about this before and I admit that these are often complex issues and difficult to move forward on. I’ve given great consideration, paid very close attention to the issues brought forward to me by my constituents and others. I’ve settled with my colleague in bringing forward this motion on a reduction of 30 to 25 percent of the rent as a maximum.
I think perhaps the best way to portray this is simply to go over an example looking at the numbers. So I’d like to start by saying the combined gross monthly income of two minimum wage employees is about $3,120 per month. Rent on that income at 30 percent is $940. The net income after deductions is $2,500. So once their rent is paid they have about $1,550 to live on for the whole month. In the case I mentioned, there were seven in the family. That’s about $220 a month to meet the needs of each person. A pretty modest amount.
Now consider the same situation at a rent scale of 25 percent. Rent on their gross income would be $780 rather than $940, leaving them an extra $160 a month to live on. One hundred sixty dollars may not seem like a lot to the average NWT family, which our statistics show is making about $100,000, but the people in public housing are not average. They live across a huge gap in income that is getting wider and wider each year.
Milk in Yellowknife costs about $2.50 a litre. That extra $160 is the equivalent of 50 more litres of milk a month. In our smaller communities where milk is five or more dollars a litre, it can make the difference between milk every couple of days and enough to meet each day’s needs. It might make the difference between presents or no presents at Christmas.
When we think about it, a reduction to 25 percent is little enough. This government sets the minimum wage scale, which is going up to about $10 an hour, but the minimum wage does not reflect the government’s belief that it’s enough to live on. The government recognizes that public housing must be provided so people can have shelter when the minimum wage can’t buy it for them. That’s an example of our interlocking system of programs and policies to help those most in need. Government’s recognition of the need to coordinate program policies to meet real conditions is the reason for adjusting the rent scale from 30 to 25 percent. Thirty percent simply isn’t sufficient to ease that hardship.
When people struggle to improve their conditions and get work, rather than relying on completely subsidized housing, we need to help them through with our policies. Moving the rent scale from 30 to 25 percent is a good step in tuning up that help, and on that basis I moved and will support this motion.
Again, Mr. Speaker, while many housing issues will require a range of responsibilities and the opportunity for flexibility in interpreting which is the most appropriate response, this is an example of an across-the-board, straightforward policy change that can help every public housing client in this situation. On that basis, again, I look forward to any other comments from my colleagues on both sides of the House and I will be prepared to give some closing remarks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for the Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of the motion, I, too, will be supporting the motion.
Again, I think it’s something that we have to be aware of. Jurisdiction to the west in regard to the Yukon, they do use the 25 percent income threshold and I think it’s something that we should be seriously considering to have a similar type of economic arrangement where we have a large urban centre, but also we have a lot of remote communities.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s important to realize that what we’re finding, through statistics and also through poverty studies, that there are communities where we have some 45 percent of incomes under $30,000 of the households in our communities. I think that looking at the amount of income people do derive in a lot of our communities, in most cases that income has to get you through the whole year. Also, with seasonal employment we do have where most people’s earnings take place usually during the summer construction season, somewhere between three and four months. Again, whatever income you derive during that period of time has to get you through the remaining seven or eight months, depending on how long you’re able to be employed.
Mr. Speaker, I think it’s critical that we do everything we can to support our individual communities. More importantly, we talk about a diverse economy and taking advantage of our economies, but we have to be able to give people the means to sustain themselves and take advantage of those economic opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, again, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will support the motion to reduce the amount that is being charged at the maximum at 30 percent of the gross income for public housing, because I recognize that with about 30 percent going to taxes and the extra cost of employment and our desire to keep people employed. Of course, people who are not afraid to be employed because their rents would be too high. It’s an opportunity to bring that down a little bit at the upper end and I think that this is one part of the program that this side of the House is asking the government to tweak and bring 30 percent, previously addresses a flat 25 percent and now they graduated up to 30 percent. They should have probably graduated up to 25 percent and I think that’s what the MLAs from this side of the House are asking for.
At the upper end for public housing clients, I’m talking about people that are making four to five thousand dollars a month, that’s only an income of $48,000 to $60,000 a year and that is high for the communities. It may be low income for here, but at that rate, 5 percent of $5,000 allows the family to retain about $250 a month; $200 to $250 a month in incomes that range from $50,000 to $60,000. So especially the seasonal employees, guys that come in and they work in the summer, it would be good to give them that break because for the rest of the year they’re essentially on EI; although their rents are lowered then, they would not be impacted by this policy. This policy does impact people at the upper end that still are not making substantial amounts of money. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to support the motion, because if this motion and if this new policy were implemented, it would necessarily result in there being less money for the local housing authorities to work with because it would in fact reduce people’s rents.
I think the responsible thing for us to do is to look at housing system-wide and say is there anything that could offset this loss of rent. So we would be trying to affect a positive change for a certain group of people that would see their rents reduced.
I do support that, Mr. Speaker, but I think, at the same time, we need to look at the sustainability of our policy right now for seniors over 60 living in public housing to pay zero rent. It’s a difficult subject to broach. It was brought in in the 13th Assembly, but as our population ages, as more people are gaining access and even some people who are currently in public housing are surpassing that age of 60 years, we have to ask ourselves if that is sustainable going forward for our government. For the seniors that I have spoken to, I believe that seniors are concerned, too, about whether this is sustainable and whether this can continue on indefinitely. I think they would rather get ahead of the game and pay some modest amount; even if it was a small amount of money. Nothing that would put them in any kind of difficulty financially, but if they could contribute in some small way.
I would like to see these things looked at in tandem. I realize this is not what the motion says, but I think for us to suggest that the housing authorities and the Housing Corporation should take a loss in rent by implementing this new policy, I think we also need to look at where we could make that difference up. That may be an area that could stand some review and some analysis.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be supporting this motion.
I spoke in my Member’s statement about the need for an evaluation of policies and procedures and programs within the Housing Corporation. If I understood the Member correctly, he stated that it will be another year before we get the completion of a Shelter Policy which should be all-encompassing.
I don’t believe that we need to wait a year before this particular policy change can take effect. I believe it was mentioned by my colleague Mr. Bromley that this is a change that is relatively easily done. I don’t believe that it needs to wait a year, nor should it wait a year in order for it to be done at the same time that the Shelter Policy is put in place. It’s my experience that comprehensive and involved evaluations tend to take a lot longer than we expect, so when we think it’s going to be ready for the beginning of the 17th Assembly, it’s probably quite likely that it’s going to be at least half as much again of that time frame.
The impact of this policy as it is currently written using the 30 percent figure can be really debilitating on families. It’s something that needs to be evaluated. I believe this is a policy which does not encourage people to work. It doesn’t encourage people to find a job and to keep a job and to stay working. I don’t feel that it is a policy that enables people. Those are the kind of policies that we need to have in terms of our housing. All of our policies need to be looked at in that light. Are they doing what we want them to do? Are they encouraging people to be productive and lead productive lives?
Just in general, I am supportive of this motion.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to be speaking in favour of the motion as well.
If you look at the money and the amount of housing units that the Government of the Northwest Territories has put on the ground in our communities over the last five years, you would expect that there would be a decrease in the core need in our communities. There isn’t. Also, I’ve travelled to a number of small communities and the number one issue facing residents in the small communities is housing.
I want to support my colleagues on putting this motion forward. I believe that people should be given an opportunity to take advantage of opportunities for employment when they come up. We shouldn’t expect people to just stay home and not go to work just because they’re worried about paying exorbitant rent when they do go to work.
I do support the motion and I support every effort that this government can make to make housing more affordable for folks around the Territory.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In short, I will be supporting this motion as it goes forward.
The lack of quality housing is a challenge in the North and when we make it completely unaffordable, the ground is never stable for a family. If you talk to all the housing experts out there, they’ll say that a good, solid home...An unaffordable home is one of the primary problems where problems at home start. They can’t afford to be there and all of a sudden it creates a ripple effect into other issues. It’s just an endless spiral.
I’m not convinced that if we move from 30 percent to 25 percent on the assessment that it’s going to kill this government. If anything, this may stabilize some of the arrears and help the adequacy and affordability of that type of housing. If anything, we’ll be giving people more of a leg up in the process of life as opposed to pushing them down.
In short, again, I will be supporting this motion and I think the government should do a serious analysis on not just how much money it may cost us, but how much money it could cost us in the long run for not providing able, adequate housing at an affordable price to our constituents and people of the North because of the ripple effects it creates through social problems.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise, too, to support the motion as well.
I think when I travel to my communities and talk to constituents, they always raise the issues of affordable housing. I think it was best said by a constituent I had run into at Northern Stores in Fort Simpson; they said, don’t call it low-rental housing if it’s not.
I think one of the ways we can address this is by actually looking at this proposal in this motion. When the Minister does his review of the rental scales, I think this a viable option to address those concerns and make those homes affordable. There are other mitigating circumstances when it comes to rent scales. There are other factors that are involved. Just making this one small change I think will help our people in the communities and help the families in our communities make housing affordable.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in full support of the motion that my colleagues are bringing forward with regard to having families in the communities I represent with the high cost of living and fixed income. The luxury we don’t have is private rental properties in the communities. We rely on the housing authority more than ever with the people that we represent. From 30 percent to 25 percent is a start. I look forward to the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate all the comments the Members made on the motion that’s before us. Recognizing that there is a concern, this obviously is something that we will be considering during our review of the rent scale.
One thing we have to realize, though, is that lowering it may be a disincentive to some of the higher income earners moving out of public housing and into homeownership. Using the gross at 30 percent, it affects a lot of the lower income earners more than the higher income earners, because the higher income earners have opportunities to put their money into sheltered areas where it’s not calculated.
As we heard from Mrs. Groenewegen, this obviously is going to affect the LHOs’ operations. They’re going to be getting less money, obviously. We have to be looking at other ways to try and recoup some of the lost investment.
There has been some discussion on seniors. It’s always a discussion that as Members we shy away from. The hard reality is to start making adjustments, you’re going to have to recoup some of the funds from somewhere else.
So that being said, I have committed that this is going to be part of our rent scale review. Because this is advice to Cabinet, we will be abstaining from voting on the motion. Obviously I am committed, as Minister of Housing, into responding to the motion that Members have put forward and we’ll look at it very carefully when we’re doing our review of the rent scale. Members will be afforded other opportunities to make comments on this as we proceed into the review.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I’ll go to the mover of the motion for closing comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues in the House for your comments. I’ve been listening closely and I appreciate the degree of support and criticisms that I’ve heard.
There is, indeed, a critical need to support our communities, particularly given our high and rising cost of living, particularly in the base of low unemployment for many of our public housing tenants. It is an enabling policy in a very direct way. It provides an opportunity to help people get into homeownership and to keep away from arrears, to support their families in the full participation in our society that we all desire.
The Minister is concerned that in fact it will not encourage the high income earners from participating in the full rent. I’d say the evidence is much stronger that we have many more low income earners who would appreciate and benefit from the significant pluses that this simple policy change can engender.
Mrs. Groenewegen mentioned the possibility available right now to replace this very modest loss of income with a 5 percent reduction through the example of the seniors she provided. That is a direct response to the Minister’s concern about that modest bit of lost income.
I think, in summary, this is not a complete answer but is a very important step and one that has been taken by other jurisdictions, including our neighbour to the west and possibly to the east.
I think the main message we want to put forward in the House today is, don’t wait. We’ve waited a long time for this public housing rent subsidy review. It looks like we’re going to wait longer. The message is: Don’t wait. Start now. This is a simple, enabling, and viable policy change. Let’s get it done.
I look forward to the support of the House. I would request a recorded vote.
